On 24/04/2012 07:20, Nathan Kurz wrote:
A fine reason to finally do this right, and having him excited to
solve this is another. But I haven't been sure whether it's Nick
demanding an upgrade proof ABI, or whether you feel it should be one.
I was wondering whether it would be better to have him continue
writing extensions and recompiling as necessary until the ABI settles
down, since the process of writing these extensions will probably
cause faster change than will be the usual case.
But as long as _both_ of you view this as a preliminary requirement,
it's a great thing to get out of the way.
For my own needs, I don't care much about ABI compatibility. I actually
started this thread with a proposal that would make ABI compatibility
very hard to maintain.
I also wouldn't say that this compatibility work is essential for
compiled extensions. But I realized it's an interesting and important
issue that I'd like to work on.
Nick
